Has anybody with a toddler & pregnant gone through the airport body scanners?

[Anonymous]

Back to your question OP: I flew with a 10 month old last month out of BWI. We were in a lane where they were using the new body scanners. They simply directed me to a traditional metal detector and I walked through it holding my son. We weren't patted down. BWI and DCA have had at least one lane using the new scanners for some months now - I have gone through them when by myself on business trips. They seem to have their procedures down pat.

[Anonymous]

Basically, if you're bothering to eat organic foods while pregnant to avoid pesticides/hormones, then you probably want to avoid the scanner too. In my eyes it's an overall sum-of-exposure thing; the occasional radiation exposure isn't bad in itself, but it's the compounded effect that has negative health consequences. Less=better. I also heard the story on NPR with the radiation research dept at Columbia - the fact that the TSA has thrown out a lowball, inaccurate radiation level is all the reason why I'd rather inconvenience them than take my chances. If they were honest and presented a powered study with accurate, independent data, then I might not be so skeptical.

As for the whole mom and little kid thing...Most TSA folks are good with kids and a 'everyone has someplace to go' attitude. I had some of them laugh at me when i took DS out of the ergo (and took off the ergo) to walk him through security which of course he then bolted...they were laughing with DH (who was schlepping our stuff through the line) that I should have just kept him on, why on earth did I bother taking him off? as I'm running to catch up with him. I'm pretty sure this was at BWI in the southwest terminal.

That said, there are some TSA agents who are all business and think they're god's gift to the department of defense. I try and avoid those...I find them especially prevalent in the midwest, not the northeast (and definitely not DCA).

Back to whether to opt out of the body scans...they had a Q&A with TSA this morning on NPR, and the answer to 'what will you do if i refuse the scan for my child?' is 'They will receive a modified pat down using technology; they are not exempt from the pat down.'. I interpreted this vague, cover-your-ass answer to mean 'The agent might use a wand, and might do a more traditional pat-down, but god forbid we tell you exactly what to expect because we know that every TSA agent makes up their own procedure'. It's the lack of consistency that drives me nuts about this whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Seriously. I would like to hear some real, workable solutions. A scan takes care of everything--there is no sneaking anything on. Quick, efficient, and most likely, safe. Certainly less invasive than being groped and questioned.

As for the toddler question--I have no idea. A friend flew with a 6 year old and made it through the scan okay. Don't know how it would work with younger children.

I can assure you it doesn't take care of everything.

The scan does not take care of everything. It does not take care of someone who would use their body cavities, try buttocks, vagina as a way of concealing explosives. The scan will not pick this up. Before you say no one would hide something in those places, think again. How do you think contraband get into many prisons. Will you keep sheepishly moving along and allow TSA to perform cavity inspections so that you can fly. That's the next step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing. We can do very little to stop people with boy cavity explosives, aside from having trained professionals look for shifty people in the crowd (as they do in Israel and some airports here).

I do support the body scans, but not because I am under the illusion we can stop every threat. I am not.

I just don't think the inability to stop every threat negates the effort to try reasonable measures. I find the scans, so fa, reasonable.

And in the absence of other suggestions...

What about those fedex packages that in the cargo section beneath that plane you are on. You have been fully scanned and/or molested, whatever your pleasure. What about that bomb underneath that was never scanned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is not recommended to fly until you are 14 weeks because you could miscarry.

Do not give out medical advice unless you are a doctor, please. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

The info is supported in the following. http://www.ohiohealth.com/bodymayo.cfm?xyzpdqabc=0&id=6&action=detail&ref=255

Generally, commercial air travel during pregnancy poses no special risks to a healthy pregnant woman or her baby. Still, if you're pregnant, it's best to check with your health care provider before you fly. Certain conditions in pregnancy — such as severe anemia, sickle cell disease, clotting disorders and placental insufficiency — can increase the risk of problems.

If you have flexibility in your travel plans, midpregnancy (14 to 28 weeks) may be the best time to fly. This is when you're likely to feel your best — and the risks of miscarriage and premature labor are the lowest. Your health care provider may restrict travel of any type after 36 weeks of pregnancy or if you're at risk of preterm delivery.

When you fly:

* Check the airline's policy about pregnancy and flying. Guidelines for pregnant women may vary by carrier.
* Choose your seat carefully. For the most space and comfort, request an aisle seat. For the smoothest ride, request a seat near the front of the plane.
* Buckle up. During the trip, fasten the lap belt under your abdomen and across the tops of your thighs.
* Promote circulation. If possible, get out of your seat for a short walk every half-hour or so. If you must remain seated, flex and extend your ankles often.
* Drink plenty of fluids. Low humidity in the cabin is dehydrating.

Women who are concerned about air travel during pregnancy often worry about air pressure and cosmic radiation at high altitudes, but these issues aren't usually problematic. Decreased air pressure during flight may slightly reduce the amount of oxygen in your blood, but your body will naturally adjust. And although radiation exposure increases at higher altitudes, the level of exposure for the occasional traveler isn't a concern.

There's a caveat for frequent fliers, however. Pilots, flight attendants, air marshals and others who fly often may receive radiation exposure that exceeds current recommendations. If you must fly frequently during your pregnancy, discuss it with your health care provider.

Yes, I've seen this. It's basically nonsense. If you are having a normal pregnancy, there is no reason whatsoever not to fly in the first trimester EXCEPT for reasons of personal comfort. I was very morning sick and actually avoided flight to the extent possible (not always able to thanks to lots of business travel). However, for most women, it's the only issue. Stop talking about not flying like it's "recommended." Most docs would be surprised if you even asked if it was "okay" to fly in the first trimester. Most miscarriages are not life threatening, save for the rare ectopic pregnancy (and there are signs every pregnant woman should know to watch for in this case). So I'm not sure why you'd make a comment like "iyou're not supposed to fly" then back it up with this ridiculous article.

[Anonymous]

To the OP
I flew out of DCA last week in the United terminal and they were not using the new full body scan. We all had to walk through the old type metal detectors. I was "randomly" chosen to get a full pat down based on the color shirt I was wearing. (everyone wearing that color got patted down) The TSA agent was quick, professional and looked like she was as uncomfortable as I was.

On my return trip from O'hare I did have to go through the full bady scan. Our line was next to the "Special Help" line so I got to watch how they dealt with different groups including families with young kids. NONE of the small children I saw went through the full body scanners nor did visably pregnant women. They all went through the old type metal detectors. (with no pat down) I was actually impressed with how they handled the families. If there were 2 adults with the kids they had one parent wait with the kids while the other went through the full body scan and then switch places. I saw a mother traveling alone with 2 toddlers and she did not have to go through the full body scan since that would have seperated her from her children. She went through the metal detector with her kids.

It seem like a lot depends on the terminal you are at as well as who is working that shift.

[Anonymous]

PP- What color shirt were you wearing??!!

[Anonymous]

I flew out of dca today. Had to take toddler out of ergo, but was directed to avoid body scanner and go through metal detector. No pat down for either of us. Person looking at our bags on the belt was in an interesting conversation and barely looked at the screen as the bags passed. So much depends on the person working in your line.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe that so many of you are accepting of this ridiculous intrusive practice.

What is the fear?

This is such an insidious way to strip us of our basic rights and cause us to live in fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I flew out of dca today. Had to take toddler out of ergo, but was directed to avoid body scanner and go through metal detector. No pat down for either of us. Person looking at our bags on the belt was in an interesting conversation and barely looked at the screen as the bags passed. So much depends on the person working in your line.

Thanks for all the great replies so far. I'm still really nervous about the scanners - I know they "say" the radiation level is safe, but I can't imagine how "safe" it can be given how clear and detailed an image results. And of course, worry for my pregnancy.
I fear the pat-downs most. Not so much for me, but for my toddler. I read/see all these reports with traumatized/crying toddlers.

I'm hoping for a situation like this poster wrote about (see above).

-The OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From TSA's website:


Advanced imaging technology is safe and meets national health and safety standards.

Backscatter technology was evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL).

All results confirmed that the radiation doses for the individuals being screened, operators, and bystanders were well below the dose limits specified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

For comparison, the energy projected by millimeter wave technology is thousands of times less than a cell phone transmission. A single scan using backscatter technology produces exposure equivalent to two minutes of flying on an airplane.

Note: Advanced imaging technology screening is safe for all passengers, including children, pregnant women, and individuals with medical implants.

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/safety.shtm

Oh YEA, because the government has never mis-stated the safety facts to the American people and put their health in danger, especially not the FDA. The good old American Sheeple lapping it up!